Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurukkal brahmins


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gurukkal brahmins

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article has not now nor has it had reliable sources for quite a long time. The group may exist, but existence is not sufficient to have an article. I can't find anything other than passing references--certainly not enough for an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete:for lack of reliable sources. I've googled for some too, but find nothing. It's also rather disruptive to have reversions to 3-year-old versions that bear 4-year-old cleanup tags that have already been cleaned up once before. --Stfg (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are certainly reliable sources on the subject notable among them being and . There is also a detailed description in Edgar Thurston's Castes and Tribes of Southern India. See . Nevertheless, I do agree that the article requires some cleaning up.- Ravi My Tea Kadai  14:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: What do those sources say? If all they are is the Gurrakhul being in a list of other clans, that's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. And Thurston is somewhere near the opposite of a reliable source for caste matters (heck, for almost anything). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, you ought to tag Castes and Tribes of Southern India, too, for deletion. How can it be considered an important book if it has stuff on non-notable social groups? Anyway, I'm, all right even if the consensus is in favour of deletion.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 08:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would change my !vote to a keep if there were acceptable sources and a genuine intention to deal with the issues of the article. Reverting to a version from August 2009, which has multiple issues and a circular ref tag that points back to the very same article, does not encourage optimism. What do the other sources say? What are the prospects for genuine article improvement? --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In reference to the above point form Ravichandar84, the fact that something has a Wikipedia article does not make it a reliable source. Mein Kampf, Bible, and Casablanca all spring to mind (not in the sense that they are in any way similar, but in the sense that they are obviously very important books/traditions in the history of the world (in very different ways), but that none of them meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. And in relation to what Stfg says, if anyone can actually provide enough information from reliable sources to write even a 3 line stub that shows why this group is independently notable from the greater Brahmin caste, I will happily withdraw the deletion nomination. I just think that if the only thing we can reliably says is, "Group X exists", then we shouldn't have an article on it; instead, we should just include it in a list or in prose somewhere else in another article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete serious WP:GNG failureShrikanthv (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 09:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete only one mention in google scholar. SalHamton (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.